Pondering Obama's true identity...

[Mr S]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... 570088&p=1
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... 570195&p=1

Agnostic's Dreaded Verdict: Birthers Are (Mainly) Right
By JOHN F. GASKI
Posted 04/25/2011 06:49 PM ET
First Of Two Parts

I will give you the unpleasant punch line upfront: There is sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that Barack Obama is probably not a U.S. citizen, therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States.

The fact that he has been serving in that office would then be not only the most audacious hoax in world history — at least since the Trojan Horse. It also creates a constitutional crisis of the first magnitude that will take decades to straighten out.

We will now approach this one step at a time to break the news to you gradually.

First, what makes anyone think that Obama is really a citizen of the U.S., natural born or otherwise? What hard evidence is there to rely on?

The evidentiary test for citizenship is a ridiculously low hurdle, and Obama has not been able to surmount it — except to the satisfaction of 50 careless state secretaries of state who certified eligibility to run in the 2008 presidential election, even though the Obama campaign organization did not produce an original birth certificate or any other evidence of citizenship. Typical quality for government work!

Real U.S. citizens are required to demonstrate hard proof of that type all the time for countless purposes, from obtaining a passport to playing Little League baseball, and Obama still cannot find his birth certificate. And now, in a remarkable coincidence, neither can the state government of Hawaii! More on that later.

Show The Evidence

Again, why should we believe that Obama is a U.S. citizen? Actually, some evidence exists that he is, but that evidence is very meager and must be weighed against the evidence to the contrary.

Some are persuaded by the birth notices in the Honolulu newspapers a few days after Obama's purported 1961 nativity, which claimed he was born locally. Now, what do you think would happen if you tried to use that quality of evidence in a court of law (or an Intro Logic class)?

I mean a real court with something other than a liberal Democrat-appointed partisan judge. To begin with, it would be conspicuous that the superior evidence, a birth certificate, is strangely absent. A scientific reaction would parallel that of a jurist, to wit: The primary source takes precedence.

Don't bother us with a secondary source like the ancient news clippings of unknown validity. Where is the primary source, the birth certificate? Why is that being suppressed? The newspaper items prove nothing other than arousing more suspicion. Where in those yellowed relics is there even a shred of proof that Obama was born in the USA?

Then, naturally, the question would be raised as to whether the putative evidence — i.e., old newspaper clippings or photocopy images thereof — could possibly be explained by something other than the otherwise unsupported assertion of native birth.

To that issue, we now have reports that it was common practice in Hawaii at the time for parents (or grandparents) in cases of nonisland (and potential non-U.S. citizenship) births to fabricate a paper trail with such false newspaper announcement submissions. All it required was an unsworn form filed with the state.

No, this was not necessarily done with the expectation that a newborn would want to run for president over 40 years hence — to dispel a favorite canard of the Obama apologists — but was motivated by a generalized expectation of future benefits of citizenship.

The contrived paper record, in other words, could help undergird a future citizenship claim, it was thought — much as is being done now by Obama! Obviously, this would have been a natural motive with foreign off-island birth cases involving one noncitizen parent, which would have disqualified for citizenship otherwise. Q.E.D.

Then, again, there is the notorious "Certification of Live Birth," a decades-later reproduction of some of the information from an original birth certificate, supposedly. To those who want to believe that this neo-artifact is probative: Think really, really hard. Can you conceive of any way this evidence could be undermined or rebutted, in court or otherwise, as less than convincing?

The "certification" is a copy, after all. A copy of what? Perhaps it was indeed copied from Obama's true birth certificate, but not necessarily. It may have been derived (even unknowingly) from a forged birth certificate, even a very good forgery, containing key false information.

The origin of this scheme would have occurred around the time Obama was thinking about beginning a political career. And again, the primary source question looms. Why not just use the original document? And statements by Hawaii officials supporting the authenticity of this ersatz record have been likewise unsworn, tellingly.

An unlikely, extreme, paranoid hypothesis? Don't forget, Obama is a creature of the Chicago political machine. Ponder that group's reputation or recall some of the unsavory methods used by the Clintons, and that Obama bested them at their own game.

Appreciate as well that forgery is not an unknown practice among liberal Democrats. A recent example is the CBS News Bush/National Guard hoax, which relied entirely on forged documents. Al Sharpton's public career began with a blatant hoax, and he has risen to the stature of party icon. John Edwards could easily have become president in 2008 but for a few percentage points in the Iowa primary, and his whole life was a fraud. Then there is Bill Clinton's life.

We could conjure up Republican examples, too, but the forgery aspect is not even essential to the story. The Certification of Live Birth conspicuously omits some vital information, such as attestation of delivery hospital and physician, or anything that would conclusively confirm U.S. birth and natural citizenship.

In view of these troubling lacunae, and the lingering questions they allow, why wouldn't Obama just produce the original? Is it not time for that question to merit an answer?

The circumstances, which grow more bizarre almost daily, do not pass the smell test or the snicker test, and Obama is allowed to get away with it, especially by the media, which only selectively perform their political watchdog role these days. Unfortunately, because the implications are so ominous for our nation, this is not funny at all.

Concerning what some hypothetical court of law would do, what about the real courts? After all, there has been a string of Obama victories in legal cases challenging his constitutional qualification and birth records.

True, but all those dismissed cases have been decided on technicalities, usually the issue of plaintiff standing. There has been nothing close to a conclusive legal affirmation of Obama's citizenship or qualification for the presidency.

Personally, I have always been agnostic on the "birther" issue because the evidence truly cuts both ways. Some tidbits and apparent facts suggest, weakly, that the person now known as "Barack Obama" is a natural-born citizen. (If George W. Bush or any other politician had used as many aliases as B.H. Obama has, he would have been laughed out of politics in short order. Need we even suggest the basis for the double standard, enforced primarily by a compliant media?)

And, as to be shown, other information suggests that the Obama occupation of the White House is illegitimate. But on this matter of whether we have an imposter in our highest national office, we do not want the evidence to be equivocal. We want it to be decisive that the nominal president is not a usurper.

Now, however, things are really getting ridiculous — crowned, perhaps, by the newly missing birth certificate in (or not in) Hawaii. This is just too rich. First the officials have it, then they don't. A Hawaii governor says he knows where it is and has seen it, then he doesn't and hasn't. (He also claims to remember Obama's actual birth, which may be a stretch too far, even for political fakery.)

Seriously

Let us not forget that the public has never seen the mysterious but essential vital record. If it were not so serious in terms of precipitating the megaconstitutional crisis of all time, it would be comical.

Why all this Hawaiian sideshow now? That may be the only transparent aspect of the whole train wreck. Obama and accomplices want the suspiciously missing birth certificate to be old news by the 2012 election season.

This is why Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie's clumsy, absurd theatrics were not only indulged with silent approval by BHO, but also likely orchestrated.

Another tactical motive is that this recent episode gives the Obama forces an excuse to deny even the possibility of producing the birth certificate when the demand surfaces seriously next campaign year. A plausible excuse only in Obama's contemptuous impression of the American public's intelligence, that is.

Tomorrow: The cumulative evidence against our maybe-president's citizenship.

• Gaski is a professor at the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business. His top research field is the nature of social and political power. He is the author of "Frugal Cool" and "The Language of Branding" and is a long-time, but former, registered Democrat.

If Obama Is Natural-Born, Why Suppress Evidence?
By JOHN F. GASKI
Posted 04/26/2011 05:24 PM ET
Second Of Two Parts

So what of the cumulative evidence against our maybe-president's citizenship? Let the reader judge the balance and weight of a summary appraisal. (Curious machinations over a crucial piece of evidence, a birth certificate of all things, changed the balance for me.)

1. If B.H. Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen, those who flack for him should be able to do better than the unpersuasive defense they have offered.

More specifically damning, haven't you noticed how Obama apologists rarely offer a substantive argument for his citizenship at all, but instead use personal attack, invective, sophistry, demagogy and ridicule? The bottom line: If you believe that the artist formerly known as Barry Soetoro really is a natural U.S. citizen, prove it. If the subject of the controversy cannot, others are not likely to be able to either.

(When this writer uses attack, ridicule, etc., it is not gratuitous but grows from the substance, such as the appearance of an insidious political provocation and national existential emergency, as here.)

2. A rhetorical question: If B.H. Obama is not hiding something terrible in his birth records, why has he spent millions covering them up? Maybe it is something else entirely, but maybe not — and ultimately it may not matter, for this deductive reason: Obama knows the cover-up only creates grave public suspicion about his constitutional eligibility, at least in responsible quarters, so if something else is the real secret, it must be something as bad or worse.

3. An attempted exculpatory answer has actually come from Obama's fiercest opponents. Conservative radio hosts sometimes mention the insider belief that they are being sandbagged or "rope-a-doped," that the birth certificate would reveal valid Hawaiian origin, and Obama is saving it to discredit them or Republicans if they raise the issue.

This amounts to pure, bald speculation, however, because those radio talkers do not disclose any basis. By way of rebuttal, the speculation does not seem to add up for the following reason. The 2008 election against John McCain was very close until nearly the end, and the primary campaign against Hillary Clinton even closer. A late, unforeseen turn of events, and either race could have gone the other way.

Even liberal political campaign organizations are very conservative tactically. If the Obama side had such a master-stroke ace-in-the-hole, it would have been beyond imprudent not to play it in or near the endgame. Barack Obama, or whatever his real name is, may be a radical, but he is not crazy and far from stupid.

In fact, evidence mounts that he has executed the most brilliant coup in world history. (This argument also rules out any likelihood that Obama is covering up just to be obstinate.)

4. Alternatively, Obama may in fact be a natural-born American, but then took dual citizenship during his Indonesian years, which he never relinquished. If so, a cover-up on Obama's part now would still be necessary because he knows U.S. voters would never abide a clandestine dual citizen as President. In that event, a monumental scandal would still prevail.

In fact, when Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, that nation's government required Indonesian citizenship for school attendance. Obama's early school records do confirm his Indonesian citizenship. This information may be the closest thing to a smoking gun, as it clinches at least dual citizenship in the strange case of Barack Obama's background.

(Yes, Obama is already established to be a citizen of Kenya as well, per a technical quirk of that country's law — even if born in Hawaii to one Kenyan parent, that is — but two foreign citizenships out of three may be too much for the U.S. electorate to digest. Obama probably sees it that way, too; hence, the cover-up of other records, including collegiate, that would impinge on contemporary citizenship.)

Therefore, the Hawaiian birth issue may ultimately and ironically be an immaterial red herring. The critical condition necessitating the gross political deception may have eventuated later and elsewhere. Even if those old Honolulu birth clippings are genuine, it would not matter. If not constitutionally disqualified from office, Obama might be pragmatically. Would that not be the supreme irony?

5. Perhaps the most plausible scenario is that the presumed Mr. Obama never had his legal name changed from Barry Soetoro, and therefore has committed a form of fraud by signing official documents with a false alias, as well as perjury by falsely swearing to that effect on many occasions (as in legal application questions about past use of an alias). That would be in addition to a massive deception of the American voters about his true identity. If this is so, no wonder the so-called Barack Obama feels he must cover it up.

More bald speculation, but on my part this time? Actually, some basic analytic support is at hand: It is fact that Mr. Obama is hiding not only birth records but virtually all vital history, including medical and academic. Yet he and his allies bleat that it is not about citizenship. Well, then — accepting that — what else of comparable magnitude could there be?

It must be something of similar gravity to justify such a full-court press and stonewall defense including the legal expenditures. The possibility of a lesser motive was disposed of previously.

6. If and when Obama and his political handlers play the race card on this matter, that will confirm the absolute worst because that is what they do when they have nothing else. Sadly, we are beginning to witness this tactic already on TV talk shows. Case closed.

In sum, we must ask, what does the balance of evidence seem to be now? Inescapably, that evidence is primarily analytic and indirect because the empirical has been so skillfully and aggressively suppressed. Questions, both old and new, and a different, open perspective have been proffered here because the elephant in the room can no longer be sensibly ignored — despite the wishes of the Obama-handmaiden media. (And thank you, Donald Trump.)

The politico-media environment actually resembles a case of mass hysteria. Irrational perceptions, actually non-perceptions of the "emperor-has-no-clothes" look-away variety, drive out the natural and healthy skepticism.

To confirm, ponder how the liberal Democrats and liberal Democrat media (and it is long overdue to apply that locution) would react if George W. Bush had had a missing birth certificate. To doubly confirm, recall how the partisan Democrats obsessively tried to disqualify John McCain's presidential eligibility although there was nothing to the issue, self-evidently. Then, a different segment, naive people of good will, just cannot bring themselves to believe the monstrous prospect of a usurper in our White House, so they look the other way, too.

Think about it. There is major and obvious doubt about the President's most fundamental personal information and qualification for office, including skepticism by a large fraction of the citizenry (per poll results), and Mr. Obama refuses to prove something readily provable by mere release of his birth record! What is wrong with this picture? What is Obama hiding? Incredible.

Given the magnitude of the stakes, though, we cannot indulge our preference to pretend that all is well, that nothing is as it appears, that we are not in a "Twilight Zone" episode or "Through the Looking Glass" after all, and anyway we don't care. The question we cannot escape, no matter how much we want to avoid it, is: What if the worst is true? Proving citizenship is totally routine and simple for any U.S. citizen — except for Barack Obama, apparently.

The (presumed) president of the United States not only has not met that test but does not even try to — in his in-your-face, preternatural arrogance and audacity. Why not? What is really going on here? What game is being played? What ruse is being played on our country?

If the truth is as horrible as the extant evidence makes it appear, the implications are without limit. National hysteria and national insanity? More like national suicide. Even more accurately, for the nation that casually allows such a coup d'etat to be imposed, national assisted suicide may be the analogue.

We actually have been here before, sort of. The public could not bring itself to believe the numerous accusations against Bill Clinton. How could a U.S. president be not only a serial adulterer, liar and philanderer, but one that, for good measure, exposes himself to women who are near-total strangers?

Then we learned that the worst was indeed true. Clinton finally admitted to perjury and obstruction of justice in his plea deal (but without using those words explicitly). And even now, some cannot believe that John F. Kennedy regularly cavorted around the White House with Mafia call girls, but that has been verified. Then there is Richard Nixon.

We have been here before more recently. Barack Obama has had a long and close association with an anti-American terrorist involved in the bombing of the Pentagon and multiple police stations. The associate's name is Bill Ayers, of course. No, Ayers was not just "a guy in the neighborhood," as Obama tried to pretend. Moreover, and maybe worse, there were those 20 years as an even closer acolyte of the manifest anti-American, Marxist, racist preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

So lying about citizenship (or one of the reviewed possibilities that are nearly as bad) is junior varsity compared with Obama's sordid personal history. Therefore, the preceding analysis is rendered mild and moderate, which makes it all the more plausible and troubling.

The conclusion: Barack Obama's covered-up background is very likely sufficient to disqualify him from the presidency, perhaps or perhaps not constitutionally through noncitizenship, or more practically because of multiple acts of fraud and deceit over legal name and multiple citizenships. Full public knowledge would surely induce prompt impeachment or electoral pariah status, that is.

Again, poignantly, and finally, if one disagrees: Prove it. You are welcome to try. It should be easy. So why is it so hard? Yes, that question is rhetorical.

• Gaski is a professor at the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business. His primary research field is the nature of social and political power. He is author of "Frugal Cool" (Corby, 2009) and "The Language of Branding" (Nova Science, 2010) and is a longtime, but former, registered Democrat.

[ladislav]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... full/full/

[Mr S]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... full/full/

That's a corporate owned media site so it's not a reliable source of neutral criticism.

http://www.infowars.com/new-obama-birth ... a-forgery/

[C.J.]

If the JUDGES denied all court investigations into the birth matter...If Obama says that this issue is a distraction, but can't even get his own backstory right... If it took THIS long to get a certificate...If there was even an issue at all...

Obviously, they had something to hide. Dodging the question for YEARS, and NOW they come up with something? One would have to be a real zombie NOT to think the NEW birth certificate's BS.

And IMO, the "bad stuff" about Obama is true(like how he went gay to get around the world, how he got his fake identity from a dead person, since his grandmother had overwrite access to public records, a school dropout, how he was a drug mule etc.)

[Mr S]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/35948

Obama has declared war on the Constitution

- Lawrence Sellin Thursday, April 28, 2011

It is now the patriotic duty of individual states to rescue the United States.

Before the 2012 election, we must push our state legislatures to pass laws requiring Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to prove that they are natural born citizens i.e. born in the United States, of citizen parents at the time of birth, in order for them to appear on the state ballot.

By publicly releasing his long-form birth certificate, Obama has officially announced that he is not a natural born citizen and is arrogantly challenging the legitimacy of the Constitution.

Not surprisingly, the political elites and the main stream media (MSM) seemed unanimously elated after the release of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth.

I imagine that they all had tingles running up their legs.

Both the Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C. insist that we should put the issue of Obama’s eligibility behind us, so they may focus on the “more serious� issues facing the country.

First, there is no more important issue for the country than the integrity of the Constitution. Without it, the federal government is null and void and the rule of law is undermined.

Second, the political elites want to move on because they have been complicit in a flagrant contravention of the Constitution, the Founders intent and judicial precedence by substituting political fiat for the legal processes involved in amending the Constitution.

The political elites and the MSM have always known that they were promoting an infringement of the Constitution by protecting Obama.

Facts are stubborn things.

For the first time in US history, an individual, who is not a natural born citizen, was knowingly elected President of the United States.

Sadly, I do not remember a time when there has been such a collection of fools and scoundrels populating the federal government and the MSM as there has been in recent years.

In my opinion, it is useless to petition Congress about Obama’s ineligibility. They have dishonored their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution. They are frightened and they will do nothing because they all share the blame for the Constitutional crisis in which we now find ourselves.

Article II, Section I of the Constitution requires that a person be a natural born citizen to be eligible for the Presidency.

The Constitution does not say “citizen�, but specifically combines the legal concepts of jus soli (right of the soil) and of citizen parents, jus sanguinis (right of blood). It was intentionally designed by the Framers to prevent a President from having dual allegiance.

The authors of the Constitution no doubt based their understanding of the term “natural born citizen,� on the 1758 book “The Law of Nations� by Emerich de Vattel, who wrote:

“… natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children…�

The narrative of the 14th Amendment is also consistent with the Framers intent regarding dual allegiance and natural born citizenship.

Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, defined natural born citizenship:

“It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.�

The underlying issues within those Congressional debates were hotly contested. Yet Bingham’s definition of natural born citizen was never challenged on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Supreme Court cases supporting the natural born citizen definition of born in the US of citizen parents include:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
In September 2008, Lawrence B. Solum, the John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, published an article in the Michigan Law Review entitled “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause�, which stated:

“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.�

Despite the intentional distortions continuously disgorged by the MSM and the willful ignorance displayed by the political elites, there is no ambiguity. Obama is not eligible for the Presidency.

Stand your ground, if he means to have a war, let it begin now.


Lawrence Sellin

Lawrence Sellin Most recent columns

© Canada Free Press 2011

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. receives hate mail at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com

[Jester]

If the JUDGES denied all court investigations into the birth matter...If Obama says that this issue is a distraction, but can't even get his own backstory right... If it took THIS long to get a certificate...If there was even an issue at all...

Obviously, they had something to hide. Dodging the question for YEARS, and NOW they come up with something? One would have to be a real zombie NOT to think the NEW birth certificate's BS.

And IMO, the "bad stuff" about Obama is true(like how he went gay to get around the world, how he got his fake identity from a dead person, since his grandmother had overwrite access to public records, a school dropout, how he was a drug mule etc.)

I knew the birth cert was probably fake, and that O was bi, and had certainly been recruited and puffed by CIA.

Did not know about drug mule thing.

So I googled "obama drug mule", and read some of the links that came up.

Jesus.

[Jester]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... 570088&p=1
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... 570195&p=1

Agnostic's Dreaded Verdict: Birthers Are (Mainly) Right
By JOHN F. GASKI
Posted 04/25/2011 06:49 PM ET
First Of Two Parts

I will give you the unpleasant punch line upfront: There is sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that Barack Obama is probably not a U.S. citizen, therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States.

The fact that he has been serving in that office would then be not only the most audacious hoax in world history — at least since the Trojan Horse. It also creates a constitutional crisis of the first magnitude that will take decades to straighten out.

We will now approach this one step at a time to break the news to you gradually.

First, what makes anyone think that Obama is really a citizen of the U.S., natural born or otherwise? What hard evidence is there to rely on?

The evidentiary test for citizenship is a ridiculously low hurdle, and Obama has not been able to surmount it — except to the satisfaction of 50 careless state secretaries of state who certified eligibility to run in the 2008 presidential election, even though the Obama campaign organization did not produce an original birth certificate or any other evidence of citizenship. Typical quality for government work!

Real U.S. citizens are required to demonstrate hard proof of that type all the time for countless purposes, from obtaining a passport to playing Little League baseball, and Obama still cannot find his birth certificate. And now, in a remarkable coincidence, neither can the state government of Hawaii! More on that later.

Show The Evidence

Again, why should we believe that Obama is a U.S. citizen? Actually, some evidence exists that he is, but that evidence is very meager and must be weighed against the evidence to the contrary.

Some are persuaded by the birth notices in the Honolulu newspapers a few days after Obama's purported 1961 nativity, which claimed he was born locally. Now, what do you think would happen if you tried to use that quality of evidence in a court of law (or an Intro Logic class)?

I mean a real court with something other than a liberal Democrat-appointed partisan judge. To begin with, it would be conspicuous that the superior evidence, a birth certificate, is strangely absent. A scientific reaction would parallel that of a jurist, to wit: The primary source takes precedence.

Don't bother us with a secondary source like the ancient news clippings of unknown validity. Where is the primary source, the birth certificate? Why is that being suppressed? The newspaper items prove nothing other than arousing more suspicion. Where in those yellowed relics is there even a shred of proof that Obama was born in the USA?

Then, naturally, the question would be raised as to whether the putative evidence — i.e., old newspaper clippings or photocopy images thereof — could possibly be explained by something other than the otherwise unsupported assertion of native birth.

To that issue, we now have reports that it was common practice in Hawaii at the time for parents (or grandparents) in cases of nonisland (and potential non-U.S. citizenship) births to fabricate a paper trail with such false newspaper announcement submissions. All it required was an unsworn form filed with the state.

No, this was not necessarily done with the expectation that a newborn would want to run for president over 40 years hence — to dispel a favorite canard of the Obama apologists — but was motivated by a generalized expectation of future benefits of citizenship.

The contrived paper record, in other words, could help undergird a future citizenship claim, it was thought — much as is being done now by Obama! Obviously, this would have been a natural motive with foreign off-island birth cases involving one noncitizen parent, which would have disqualified for citizenship otherwise. Q.E.D.

Then, again, there is the notorious "Certification of Live Birth," a decades-later reproduction of some of the information from an original birth certificate, supposedly. To those who want to believe that this neo-artifact is probative: Think really, really hard. Can you conceive of any way this evidence could be undermined or rebutted, in court or otherwise, as less than convincing?

The "certification" is a copy, after all. A copy of what? Perhaps it was indeed copied from Obama's true birth certificate, but not necessarily. It may have been derived (even unknowingly) from a forged birth certificate, even a very good forgery, containing key false information.

The origin of this scheme would have occurred around the time Obama was thinking about beginning a political career. And again, the primary source question looms. Why not just use the original document? And statements by Hawaii officials supporting the authenticity of this ersatz record have been likewise unsworn, tellingly.

An unlikely, extreme, paranoid hypothesis? Don't forget, Obama is a creature of the Chicago political machine. Ponder that group's reputation or recall some of the unsavory methods used by the Clintons, and that Obama bested them at their own game.

Appreciate as well that forgery is not an unknown practice among liberal Democrats. A recent example is the CBS News Bush/National Guard hoax, which relied entirely on forged documents. Al Sharpton's public career began with a blatant hoax, and he has risen to the stature of party icon. John Edwards could easily have become president in 2008 but for a few percentage points in the Iowa primary, and his whole life was a fraud. Then there is Bill Clinton's life.

We could conjure up Republican examples, too, but the forgery aspect is not even essential to the story. The Certification of Live Birth conspicuously omits some vital information, such as attestation of delivery hospital and physician, or anything that would conclusively confirm U.S. birth and natural citizenship.

In view of these troubling lacunae, and the lingering questions they allow, why wouldn't Obama just produce the original? Is it not time for that question to merit an answer?

The circumstances, which grow more bizarre almost daily, do not pass the smell test or the snicker test, and Obama is allowed to get away with it, especially by the media, which only selectively perform their political watchdog role these days. Unfortunately, because the implications are so ominous for our nation, this is not funny at all.

Concerning what some hypothetical court of law would do, what about the real courts? After all, there has been a string of Obama victories in legal cases challenging his constitutional qualification and birth records.

True, but all those dismissed cases have been decided on technicalities, usually the issue of plaintiff standing. There has been nothing close to a conclusive legal affirmation of Obama's citizenship or qualification for the presidency.

Personally, I have always been agnostic on the "birther" issue because the evidence truly cuts both ways. Some tidbits and apparent facts suggest, weakly, that the person now known as "Barack Obama" is a natural-born citizen. (If George W. Bush or any other politician had used as many aliases as B.H. Obama has, he would have been laughed out of politics in short order. Need we even suggest the basis for the double standard, enforced primarily by a compliant media?)

And, as to be shown, other information suggests that the Obama occupation of the White House is illegitimate. But on this matter of whether we have an imposter in our highest national office, we do not want the evidence to be equivocal. We want it to be decisive that the nominal president is not a usurper.

Now, however, things are really getting ridiculous — crowned, perhaps, by the newly missing birth certificate in (or not in) Hawaii. This is just too rich. First the officials have it, then they don't. A Hawaii governor says he knows where it is and has seen it, then he doesn't and hasn't. (He also claims to remember Obama's actual birth, which may be a stretch too far, even for political fakery.)

Seriously

Let us not forget that the public has never seen the mysterious but essential vital record. If it were not so serious in terms of precipitating the megaconstitutional crisis of all time, it would be comical.

Why all this Hawaiian sideshow now? That may be the only transparent aspect of the whole train wreck. Obama and accomplices want the suspiciously missing birth certificate to be old news by the 2012 election season.

This is why Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie's clumsy, absurd theatrics were not only indulged with silent approval by BHO, but also likely orchestrated.

Another tactical motive is that this recent episode gives the Obama forces an excuse to deny even the possibility of producing the birth certificate when the demand surfaces seriously next campaign year. A plausible excuse only in Obama's contemptuous impression of the American public's intelligence, that is.

Tomorrow: The cumulative evidence against our maybe-president's citizenship.

• Gaski is a professor at the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business. His top research field is the nature of social and political power. He is the author of "Frugal Cool" and "The Language of Branding" and is a long-time, but former, registered Democrat.

If Obama Is Natural-Born, Why Suppress Evidence?
By JOHN F. GASKI
Posted 04/26/2011 05:24 PM ET
Second Of Two Parts

So what of the cumulative evidence against our maybe-president's citizenship? Let the reader judge the balance and weight of a summary appraisal. (Curious machinations over a crucial piece of evidence, a birth certificate of all things, changed the balance for me.)

1. If B.H. Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen, those who flack for him should be able to do better than the unpersuasive defense they have offered.

More specifically damning, haven't you noticed how Obama apologists rarely offer a substantive argument for his citizenship at all, but instead use personal attack, invective, sophistry, demagogy and ridicule? The bottom line: If you believe that the artist formerly known as Barry Soetoro really is a natural U.S. citizen, prove it. If the subject of the controversy cannot, others are not likely to be able to either.

(When this writer uses attack, ridicule, etc., it is not gratuitous but grows from the substance, such as the appearance of an insidious political provocation and national existential emergency, as here.)

2. A rhetorical question: If B.H. Obama is not hiding something terrible in his birth records, why has he spent millions covering them up? Maybe it is something else entirely, but maybe not — and ultimately it may not matter, for this deductive reason: Obama knows the cover-up only creates grave public suspicion about his constitutional eligibility, at least in responsible quarters, so if something else is the real secret, it must be something as bad or worse.

3. An attempted exculpatory answer has actually come from Obama's fiercest opponents. Conservative radio hosts sometimes mention the insider belief that they are being sandbagged or "rope-a-doped," that the birth certificate would reveal valid Hawaiian origin, and Obama is saving it to discredit them or Republicans if they raise the issue.

This amounts to pure, bald speculation, however, because those radio talkers do not disclose any basis. By way of rebuttal, the speculation does not seem to add up for the following reason. The 2008 election against John McCain was very close until nearly the end, and the primary campaign against Hillary Clinton even closer. A late, unforeseen turn of events, and either race could have gone the other way.

Even liberal political campaign organizations are very conservative tactically. If the Obama side had such a master-stroke ace-in-the-hole, it would have been beyond imprudent not to play it in or near the endgame. Barack Obama, or whatever his real name is, may be a radical, but he is not crazy and far from stupid.

In fact, evidence mounts that he has executed the most brilliant coup in world history. (This argument also rules out any likelihood that Obama is covering up just to be obstinate.)

4. Alternatively, Obama may in fact be a natural-born American, but then took dual citizenship during his Indonesian years, which he never relinquished. If so, a cover-up on Obama's part now would still be necessary because he knows U.S. voters would never abide a clandestine dual citizen as President. In that event, a monumental scandal would still prevail.

In fact, when Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, that nation's government required Indonesian citizenship for school attendance. Obama's early school records do confirm his Indonesian citizenship. This information may be the closest thing to a smoking gun, as it clinches at least dual citizenship in the strange case of Barack Obama's background.

(Yes, Obama is already established to be a citizen of Kenya as well, per a technical quirk of that country's law — even if born in Hawaii to one Kenyan parent, that is — but two foreign citizenships out of three may be too much for the U.S. electorate to digest. Obama probably sees it that way, too; hence, the cover-up of other records, including collegiate, that would impinge on contemporary citizenship.)

Therefore, the Hawaiian birth issue may ultimately and ironically be an immaterial red herring. The critical condition necessitating the gross political deception may have eventuated later and elsewhere. Even if those old Honolulu birth clippings are genuine, it would not matter. If not constitutionally disqualified from office, Obama might be pragmatically. Would that not be the supreme irony?

5. Perhaps the most plausible scenario is that the presumed Mr. Obama never had his legal name changed from Barry Soetoro, and therefore has committed a form of fraud by signing official documents with a false alias, as well as perjury by falsely swearing to that effect on many occasions (as in legal application questions about past use of an alias). That would be in addition to a massive deception of the American voters about his true identity. If this is so, no wonder the so-called Barack Obama feels he must cover it up.

More bald speculation, but on my part this time? Actually, some basic analytic support is at hand: It is fact that Mr. Obama is hiding not only birth records but virtually all vital history, including medical and academic. Yet he and his allies bleat that it is not about citizenship. Well, then — accepting that — what else of comparable magnitude could there be?

It must be something of similar gravity to justify such a full-court press and stonewall defense including the legal expenditures. The possibility of a lesser motive was disposed of previously.

6. If and when Obama and his political handlers play the race card on this matter, that will confirm the absolute worst because that is what they do when they have nothing else. Sadly, we are beginning to witness this tactic already on TV talk shows. Case closed.

In sum, we must ask, what does the balance of evidence seem to be now? Inescapably, that evidence is primarily analytic and indirect because the empirical has been so skillfully and aggressively suppressed. Questions, both old and new, and a different, open perspective have been proffered here because the elephant in the room can no longer be sensibly ignored — despite the wishes of the Obama-handmaiden media. (And thank you, Donald Trump.)

The politico-media environment actually resembles a case of mass hysteria. Irrational perceptions, actually non-perceptions of the "emperor-has-no-clothes" look-away variety, drive out the natural and healthy skepticism.

To confirm, ponder how the liberal Democrats and liberal Democrat media (and it is long overdue to apply that locution) would react if George W. Bush had had a missing birth certificate. To doubly confirm, recall how the partisan Democrats obsessively tried to disqualify John McCain's presidential eligibility although there was nothing to the issue, self-evidently. Then, a different segment, naive people of good will, just cannot bring themselves to believe the monstrous prospect of a usurper in our White House, so they look the other way, too.

Think about it. There is major and obvious doubt about the President's most fundamental personal information and qualification for office, including skepticism by a large fraction of the citizenry (per poll results), and Mr. Obama refuses to prove something readily provable by mere release of his birth record! What is wrong with this picture? What is Obama hiding? Incredible.

Given the magnitude of the stakes, though, we cannot indulge our preference to pretend that all is well, that nothing is as it appears, that we are not in a "Twilight Zone" episode or "Through the Looking Glass" after all, and anyway we don't care. The question we cannot escape, no matter how much we want to avoid it, is: What if the worst is true? Proving citizenship is totally routine and simple for any U.S. citizen — except for Barack Obama, apparently.

The (presumed) president of the United States not only has not met that test but does not even try to — in his in-your-face, preternatural arrogance and audacity. Why not? What is really going on here? What game is being played? What ruse is being played on our country?

If the truth is as horrible as the extant evidence makes it appear, the implications are without limit. National hysteria and national insanity? More like national suicide. Even more accurately, for the nation that casually allows such a coup d'etat to be imposed, national assisted suicide may be the analogue.

We actually have been here before, sort of. The public could not bring itself to believe the numerous accusations against Bill Clinton. How could a U.S. president be not only a serial adulterer, liar and philanderer, but one that, for good measure, exposes himself to women who are near-total strangers?

Then we learned that the worst was indeed true. Clinton finally admitted to perjury and obstruction of justice in his plea deal (but without using those words explicitly). And even now, some cannot believe that John F. Kennedy regularly cavorted around the White House with Mafia call girls, but that has been verified. Then there is Richard Nixon.

We have been here before more recently. Barack Obama has had a long and close association with an anti-American terrorist involved in the bombing of the Pentagon and multiple police stations. The associate's name is Bill Ayers, of course. No, Ayers was not just "a guy in the neighborhood," as Obama tried to pretend. Moreover, and maybe worse, there were those 20 years as an even closer acolyte of the manifest anti-American, Marxist, racist preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

So lying about citizenship (or one of the reviewed possibilities that are nearly as bad) is junior varsity compared with Obama's sordid personal history. Therefore, the preceding analysis is rendered mild and moderate, which makes it all the more plausible and troubling.

The conclusion: Barack Obama's covered-up background is very likely sufficient to disqualify him from the presidency, perhaps or perhaps not constitutionally through noncitizenship, or more practically because of multiple acts of fraud and deceit over legal name and multiple citizenships. Full public knowledge would surely induce prompt impeachment or electoral pariah status, that is.

Again, poignantly, and finally, if one disagrees: Prove it. You are welcome to try. It should be easy. So why is it so hard? Yes, that question is rhetorical.

• Gaski is a professor at the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business. His primary research field is the nature of social and political power. He is author of "Frugal Cool" (Corby, 2009) and "The Language of Branding" (Nova Science, 2010) and is a longtime, but former, registered Democrat.

Just stumbled across this old thread. Thanks.

PS I do wish articles like these had footnotes. in that case I would share them with more people.

[Blue Murder]

Here's a question: Who cares?

You all really need a life if you're worried about a President's birth place, rather than his ability to lead/guide a nation. You lot have bigger issues than where someone was born -- like an economic recession? You might've heard of that. No?

[C.J.]

Blue Murder, that's funny!

You know US presidents haven't done anything except f***ing things up since the 60s?

f**k the economic depression, there's no need to worry about that. Actually, looking into the birther matter will give you some insight into US think tanks, and what THEY KNOW, as opposed to what they tell you.

This is a glaring mistake, showing that there is much they're hiding from you! This will help you to listen to your intuition. You can get free money every week if you know how! The key ain't about just making money, it's understanding the money system enough, to drain it from the elite instead!

[davewe]

Here's a question: Who cares?

You all really need a life if you're worried about a President's birth place, rather than his ability to lead/guide a nation. You lot have bigger issues than where someone was born -- like an economic recession? You might've heard of that. No?

I agree.

When people haven't the intelligence to debate issues, when they haven't the character to discuss character, when they haven't the balls to provide leadership - they go back to that age old political argument - "he isn't one of us."

I am old enough to remember when the prime criticism of Kennedy was that he "wasn't one of us"; he was (God forbid) - a Catholic! FDR was called by his opponents "that cripple in the White House."

Everyone knows that you can't get away with saying Obama isn't one of us cause he's black - that's political suicide. So they say he's not one of us cause he's not really an American. An even more brilliant strategy - he's African. A perfect strategy cause it tells us that he is "not one of us" while telling us that he's worse than an African American - that's he actually an African.

I'd feel better if his opponents called him the name they really want to call him! At least that would be honest.

[OutWest]

Here's a question: Who cares?

You all really need a life if you're worried about a President's birth place, rather than his ability to lead/guide a nation. You lot have bigger issues than where someone was born -- like an economic recession? You might've heard of that. No?

I agree.

When people haven't the intelligence to debate issues, when they haven't the character to discuss character, when they haven't the balls to provide leadership - they go back to that age old political argument - "he isn't one of us."

I am old enough to remember when the prime criticism of Kennedy was that he "wasn't one of us"; he was (God forbid) - a Catholic! FDR was called by his opponents "that cripple in the White House."

Everyone knows that you can't get away with saying Obama isn't one of us cause he's black - that's political suicide. So they say he's not one of us cause he's not really an American. An even more brilliant strategy - he's African. A perfect strategy cause it tells us that he is "not one of us" while telling us that he's worse than an African American - that's he actually an African.

I'd feel better if his opponents called him the name they really want to call him! At least that would be honest.

You are quite right- the birth issue is sideshow- often by individuals who could NEVER be convinced of anything.
More important is Obama's actual agenda, continued in part from GW Bush, that will totally destroy the country as a free republic, or at least what is left of that. Spending on both military and entitlements (The entitlement-industrial complex) with the premise being that
the US can borrow a trillion or 2 every year from China and others as well as just print the money, well THAT is not a policy unless you
have visions of insuring the US become a totally bankrupt republic...oops..I guess it is done already. Obama and others sincerely think that Americans should be self-loathing (Jeremiah Wright style) so a greatly diminished country is the goal, after all, that would be "Justice".

Remember all the "born again civil libertarians" that correctly reacted to such things as the Patriot Act in the Bush terms?
Where are they now, as such destruction of liberties has only accelerated under Obama? Both Bush and Obama belong to the same party: the Citizen Slave Party.


Outwest

[Jester]

Here's a question: Who cares?

You all really need a life if you're worried about a President's birth place, rather than his ability to lead/guide a nation. You lot have bigger issues than where someone was born -- like an economic recession? You might've heard of that. No?

I agree.

When people haven't the intelligence to debate issues, when they haven't the character to discuss character, when they haven't the balls to provide leadership - they go back to that age old political argument - "he isn't one of us."

I am old enough to remember when the prime criticism of Kennedy was that he "wasn't one of us"; he was (God forbid) - a Catholic! FDR was called by his opponents "that cripple in the White House."

Everyone knows that you can't get away with saying Obama isn't one of us cause he's black - that's political suicide. So they say he's not one of us cause he's not really an American. An even more brilliant strategy - he's African. A perfect strategy cause it tells us that he is "not one of us" while telling us that he's worse than an African American - that's he actually an African.

I'd feel better if his opponents called him the name they really want to call him! At least that would be honest.

Congratulations on being a member of the Thought Police. You know what everyone thinks.

[Jester]

Here's a question: Who cares?

You all really need a life if you're worried about a President's birth place, rather than his ability to lead/guide a nation. You lot have bigger issues than where someone was born -- like an economic recession? You might've heard of that. No?

What you are espousing is the Fuehrer Principle.

You can still find Stalinists today who believe as you do. Sure, he was a brutal gangster, but we needed him.

No debating with this POV.

[OutWest]

Here's a question: Who cares?

You all really need a life if you're worried about a President's birth place, rather than his ability to lead/guide a nation. You lot have bigger issues than where someone was born -- like an economic recession? You might've heard of that. No?

What you are espousing is the Fuehrer Principle.

You can still find Stalinists today who believe as you do. Sure, he was a brutal gangster, but we needed him.

No debating with this POV.

+1


Outwest

[Winston]

US Presidents are just actors. They have no real power. They are just there to put on a show, like other politicians are. The real people with real power are behind the scenes and operate in secret outside of public scrutiny. That's the way it is.

Speaking of Obama, how did he come out of nowhere? He isn't part of any elite families, and no one at Columbia University even remembers ever seeing him there. No one from his childhood remembers him either. Very odd.

Ladislav, you are gullible as usual. Anyone can fake a birth certificate or document. I could even fake a document saying that you were born in China. All I have to do is create it and print it up.

Donald Trump hired an investigation team to go to Hawaii and look for Obama's birth records and they turned up empty handed. That should tell you a lot. The whole weight of evidence is that Obama is a fraud and hiding the truth.